You are not logged in.
I'm not sure what you're asking. The internal structure of a wormhole theoretically doesn't have length. You go in, you pop out on the other side somewhere else in the universe. If we can move the wormhole "doors" about arbitrarily, both ends could be ten feet from each other, for all we care.
Well, a wormhole is not an instantaneous connection between two points, just a shorter one. Moving one end of a wormhole for time dilation might stretch the connection to compensate. You time dilate two hours, you stretch it two light-hours, that's all I'm suggesting.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/worldbalance/]NOVA: World in the Balance
hrm, correct me if i'm wrong, but wouldn't the distance through the wormhole expand to compensate for the time lag? so if the other end of the wormhole is "2 years behind" the first, there'd be at least 2 light-years from entrance to exit?
hematite via precipitation:
Yeah, I got sent that link in the mail a while back, thought everyone here would enjoy it. Wish I had a couple of those signs for the wall of my room...
an alcubierre drive isn't a faster-than-light drive. the contraction and expansion of space effects everything, including electromagnatism, so you'd still be going less than light speed. people at your destination would still see you coming before you arrive. assuming you didn't distort spacetime too much, and you took a roundabout path to your destination, you could turn around and watch the preparations for your own launch, but you wouldn't have gone backwards in time. if you stayed two hours and then went back with your alcubierre drive, you'd find that two hours would have passed on earth. the ability to catch up with light that left you and travelled a different path is nothing new. this happens with strong gravitational lensing, for example. one lensing image can be delayed compared the other.
No, because they would be small enough and over-engineered enough that they would do just fine with Earth's gravity.
No, I assure you they won't. It'd be a tremendous waste of weight (the Apollo LEM wouldn't have held up in terrestrial gravity). Martian structures will be reinforced for safety, but we're talking about maybe a +15-30% max increase in structural stability, not the +250-350% you'd need for it to hold up for landing on earth. That much structural mass would be way overkill, and likely mean doubling the mass of the hab and erv
don't see why you would test stuff on the moon, rather than Mars?
If something break you are still along way from Earth. Wouldn't you test it by re-entering and landing in Antartica or Australia?
gravity. mars structures would collapse under their own weight on earth
Free — Free
A Trip
To Mars
For 900
Empty Jars
Burma-Shave
Uh not sure where that info came from bolbuyk, but von Braun was not a Nazi. Wernher von Braun was an naive apolitical dreamer. If he was a member of the party (which i'm pretty sure he wasn't), it was only likely because much of his work was overseen by the SS. He built rockets for the german army only because rocket research was outlawed by the Nazis except under military circumstances, he certainly didn't have any Nazi ideology. It should be noted that the V-2 was designed with the intent of attacking military targets. It wasn't until 1944 when the SS took control of the project that work was done to turn it into a terror weapon (von Braun was imprisoned for criticizing it's use when the first V-2 fell on London).
The questions about his past come from the fact that slave labor was used to build the V-2's at Nordhausen. It's very likely that von Braun knew this (he did oversee most of the project, although the SS handled that end), but he didn't do anything dramatic to stop it. At the same time though, what could he have done? To speak out would have been suicide in the most literal sense, especially so near the end of the war.
sc - supersonic combustion
EDIT: cindy, the technology behind the two is very different. i don't have time to write now, but i'm sure you can find a good description of the two with a google search. ramjets are used by all supersonic jets, only two scramjets have flown (the nasa hyper-x and the australian project a year or two ago)
well said dicktice
Ad Astra and Mad Grad Student are correct. Engineering is an iterative process, and there's a lot that goes wrong. Even with today's computer simulations the only way to know if you won't have problems is to go out and test it. I would also add a moon flyby to the list as well, to test the trans-mars booster stage and high speed reentry/aerobraking.
(already been discussed before http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=208]here)
Rxke hits it dead on, KSR did a wonderful job with the characters and internal politics, but the economics, earth politics, timeline, technology, engineering, motivations all lie on very shaky ground. They're wonderful books, but be sure to keep in mind that they are fiction in every sense of the word.
Can you imagine doing an apollo 10 to Mars? At Mars with all the equipment to land and live for two years... but no wait. We are going to ABORT just to check that we CAN.
The lunar module on apollo 10 wasn't finished. It was an early design that was too heavy to have returned from the lunar surface after landing.
well a year long mission for the cosmonauts would mean a six month delay for the americans.
No, it would not affect the American crew rotation schedule at all.
Not my point at all. The cosmonauts are up there as part of a joint russian-american research program, of which nasa's primary goal is the study of zero-gee health effects. And for the medical guys at nasa, two crews for six months each would provide much more useful data than one crew for a year, and they've expressed this. A year long stay would mean a delay in this research, and the station's only going to be up there for a finite period of time, so nasa has a legitimate reason to complain.
it's not at all clear yet that a year in space would be a safe thing to do
The Russians seem to think that it is safe. After all, Valeri Polyokov spent 438 consecutive days on Mir in 1994-1995. 3 Russians have been in space for missions with a duration of greater than 1 year, and at least 7 have cumulative time in space of more than a year. I think that Sergei Avdeyev has the most cumulative time in space, with 3 trips to Mir totaling more than 2 years.
That doesn't mean it's safe. Nobody is saying a year in space will kill them, but there's good reason to believe it might have permanent health effects. The fact is the russian space agency has been very secretive about the medical records of cosmonauts pre-ISS, and health effects are statistical anyway and vary greatly among the population. Problems are manifested in some people, but not in others. You simply cannot expect the experiances of three individuals to apply to the whole. We need more people, not more time in space. That's what nasa means by "more data points".
-----
"Showdown in space"? I don't think so. The russians are strapped for cash, they brainstorm a few ideas. They ask nasa what they think about a year in space. Nasa does consider it, but says they don't think it's safe, and that it'd delay their research program. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that all that's happened? Someone's overreacting, cause there are other ways of raising money.
well a year long mission for the cosmonauts would mean a six month delay for the americans. each crew rotation is a chance to see the effects of long duration zero g on a new set of human beings, and we are learning new things. it's not at all clear yet that a year in space would be a safe thing to do
fly? no. glide? maybe.
The tail structure or fins are not what makes an airplane "fly", they just add stability. The lifting is done by the wings. A body- and tail-less design like B2 has greater lift (since the whole airplane is a wing) at the expense of stability and control precision. In the case of the B2, the main reason they went that route is to cut down the radar cross section (most of which comes from the tail structure). But this thing does have a tail structure.
The model you've got won't fly -- the craft looks heavy while the wings are way too small. Whoever made the model was an artist not an aeronautical engineer (those wings, while cool looking, won't give you much lift).
But I do notice the rocket or jet nozzles on the bottom of the wings. If the craft was reworked and smoothed out a little bit to give it a lifting-body design, it could be used to glide in from reentry like the shuttle and soft land vertically with rockets/jets, or just slow enough to drop troops or the truck and rocket back to orbit. That's not too far fetched. I assume it's a spacecraft because reentry speeds is the only thing I can think of that would make you want to limit the size of the wings.
Anyway, why do you ask?
it is *not* compression, b'cause the higher-res pics have it too. it is definitely tampered with...
they just 'cut' out the sky... And on some pics quite clumsy, to boot... And it seems t be only in the colour pics, though i recall something similar in one of the first pics from either Spirit or Opportunity... There was a big white 'cut' out of the sky
No they didn't "just cut out the sky," they ran a few filters over it. NASA filters all the images they get back, to compensate for instrument noise. A lot of the low-level and high-level noise is reduced, and the picture is a lot more accurate. Then when run through the compression algorithm the compression blocks have a lot less entropy, the jpeg compressor decides the differences are too small for the human eye to percieve, and the result is constant color compression blocks (which help make the image smaller).
There's no need for conspiracy theories. NASA isn't tampering images, they're just running standard filters over instrument data and then color correcting to get the pictures they release (both of which lower entropy of the picture).
Julius Ceasar - Are you sure those are true color pictures?
bolbuyk - Color isn't a physical property, but we can still figure out what Mars would subjectively look like, by comparing the frequencies encountered on mars to those encountered here on earth.
[http://spacedaily.com/images/ss1-moon-wk-desk-1024.jpg]Click Me
A few days old, but very cool. Does anyone else think SpaceShipOne looks like R2D2?
As a programmer who has worked with compressed image formats, I can tell you that blocks will compress to a constant or near-constant color if there is little significant detail and a high compression ratio. In addition, NASA likely ran some high- and low-pass filters over the raw images to get rid of instrument error, which would have significantly lessened the entropy (detail) per compression block, making it more likely for the image compressor to approximate with a constant color.
That's just jpeg compression you're looking at. You're "raw" image isn't raw at all--it's highly compressed jpeg. You can even see the compression blocks.
As for the color, NASA's images look pink and washed out because to the human eye Mars would look pink and washed out. The raw images have more contrast because the cameras are designed to work in the range of light available on the martian surface.
But we're talking about electromagnetic momentum, not p=mv.
Please errorlist, at least read the posts of people who are trying to help you.
Electromagnetic waves have electromagnetic energy. EM energy can be absorbed and turned into kinetic energy. They do so by exerting a force on the object they hit (usually a magnetic force on spinning electrons in an atom's orbit). Since by applying a force they are imparting a momentum onto the object they hit, one could say by analogy that the EM wave had momentum that it transfered to the object. But we're talking about electromagnetic momentum, not p=mv.
??
What's you point? Is there supposed to be something in the sky?
